pages: CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf, 20
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2022-01-04 | 20 | scheduling a check-in at six months after the ordinance goes into effect so staff can report how the ordinance is unfolding and how many applications have been received; stated Council can make changes when needed; she favors a phased approach; Council can keep an eye on the Housing Element and meeting RHNA goals; discussed moderate affordable units being 80% to 120% of the area median income; stated some people miss the cutoff and struggle with housing; this provides more opportunities. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know how soon the matter can return to Council with the incorporated direction. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he is hearing strong general consensus for limiting unit sizes somewhere between 800 and 1,200 square feet in size; stated the dispersion idea is great for shutting down loopholes and guaranteeing a maximum of five units; staff will have to work through the question of whether Council will want to use the lot split as an incentive to gain homeownership; a lot split can increase the number of units to six or seven and should be considered; staff can return with a solid plan by the second meeting in February; currently, there is not a single application; if an application comes in before the matter returns, the information will be helpful; expressed support for returning to Council six months after an ordinance is passed for a report back on how the process is working. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any legal issues with posting draft ideas to the City's website for public comment. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated staff can place the information on the City website before the meeting materials are published; the process can stretch out a couple months depending on how much public input is desired; suggested setting a deadline. Councilmember Know White stated the Planning Board is the process of getting public input on planning projects; the matter should be sent to the Planning Board if Council wants public input; expressed concern about a false Planning Board process to collect input using staff time; stated Council will either need to provide staff with six months or have the matter return in February. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated Council is making substantive changes to the ordinance which does not qualify as a first reading; Council is providing direction to staff and proposing matters which arose via public comment and correspondence; the public has had a good change to weigh in; staff can work through Council direction. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter would be returning to Council February 15th The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the matter is being continued to February 15th or whether the matter will be re-noticed. The City Clerk responded the matter must be re-noticed. (22-025) Public Hearing to Consider the following Ordinances to Govern the Future Development of the Encinal Terminals Property: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 20 | CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf |